The Minnesota Court of Appeals has reinstated a defamation suit against an organization that helps victims of domestic violence, ruling that a story told by a man’s ex-wife at an awards banquet and fundraising newsletter is not protected.

There was no mention of domestic abuse in the divorce decree between Kurt Maethner and Jacquelyn Jorud when their 15-year marriage ended in 2010. But four years later, at a fundraising banquet for Someplace Safe, a Fergus Falls, Minn.-based agency for domestic abuse survivors, the agency gave a “Survivor Award” to Jorud as a “survivor of domestic abuse.”

Someplace Safe also issued a press release with her photo and some area newspapers used it in their articles, even though it never investigated any of her claims.

A subsequent fundraising newsletter carried this message from Jorud:

“I was asked to write a short article celebrating the fact of not just surviving domestic violence, but thriving through recovery.” “Getting out of an unhealthy, threatening and dangerous relationship is hard. It is scary.” “Just because you have left, or the divorce is final, . . . doesn’t mean the slate is []wiped clean and you can just start a new life.” “I don’t know if there will ever be a time when I can be certain I am no longer being stalked and watched.” “I didn’t want to live in a constant state of fear.” “I didn’t want daily conflict and fighting.”

The article didn’t mention Maethner by name, nor did it contain any identifying information to suggest she was talking about him.

But he sued her and Someplace Safe because their marriage was well known in the community and a reasonable person would believe she was talking about him.

A district court threw the case out because he wasn’t identified in her story, that the speech was protected, and that Someplace Safe had no duty to investigate her claims.

Whether her claims are true or not isn’t an issue, the Minnesota Court of Appeals made clear today in returning the case for trial (See ruling).

While defamatory statements might be protected when presented in good faith — a psychologist alleging likely child abuse, for example — that’s not the case here, the court said.

“A banquet and newsletter were not the proper occasion to disseminate statements alleging criminal conduct, nor did the fundraising purpose for both of these activities reflect a proper motive for doing so,” Judge Diane Bratvold wrote on behalf of the three-judge panel.

Someplace Safe acknowledged that the banquet’s purpose was to raise money for the organization. Someplace Safe also stated that it published Jorud’s article in a newsletter to “connect” with “funders and supporters” and to solicit donations.

The fourth factor also weighs against applying the privilege because Someplace Safe did not claim to have a “reasonable belief” that Jorud was abused. Instead, Someplace Safe expressly stated that it accepted Jorud’s statements at face value.

Bratvold said the woman’s posts on Facebook also are not protected.

And she said Someplace Safe had a duty to investigate Jorud’s claims, noting that proof of negligence is part of a defamation claim.

Someplace Safe seems to assert that it cannot be held liable for negligence because it did not directly make the allegedly defamatory statements, and merely “printed an article [Jorud] wrote.”

But this narrow exception applies only when the publisher has reprinted a news item obtained from a reputable wire service. (“The ‘wire service’ defense recognizes that a newspaper, under ordinary circumstances, cannot be found by a jury to have acted negligently by relying on the accuracy of a news item obtained from a reputable wire service.”).

Here, no wire or other news service was involved; Someplace Safe solicited, published, and disseminated Jorud’s article containing the allegedly defamatory matters.

About the blogger

Bob Collins retired from Minnesota Public Radio in 2019 after 12 years of writing NewsCut and pointing out to complainants that posts weren’t news stories. A son of Massachusetts, he was a news editor 1992-1998, created the MPR News regional website in 1999, invented the popular Select A Candidate, started several blogs, and every day lamented that his Minnesota Fantasy Legislature project never caught on.

Related Blog Posts

““A banquet and newsletter were not the proper occasion to disseminate statements alleging criminal conduct”
A banquet for survivors of “criminal conduct” is not a place to talk about criminal conduct?

Come again?

I think this judge just opened himself up to a defamation suit, because a court decisions is not the place to talk about who did or didn’t commit defamation… sure it might be a place set aside for EXACTLY that, but we’ve already demonstrated that isn’t enough… like a banquet for survivors of criminal conduct not being able to talk about criminal conduct…

RBHolb

Context. The court was discussing whether it was appropriate to make the first claim of domestic abuse at a fundraiser. A distinction was being drawn with a psychologist making a disclosure of abuse to a child’s parent (appropriate).

The court wasn’t weighing in on the banquet being the first place. It was deciding whether defamatory statements in fundraising is protected, AND whether the organization had a duty to investigate the claims before amplifying them.

RBHolb

True, but the contrast was being drawn between the fundraising banquet and the (appropriate) initial report of a psychologist.

Jack Ungerleider

So if domestic abuse was sited in divorce proceedings as one of the reasons for divorce, would that change the situation?

RBHolb

Maybe. A factually accurate report of a court proceeding (like a newspaper report) is usually privileged. If it’s just an accusation made and repeated outside the context of a report like that, probably not.

David Kedrowski

Good answer. You could site the court documents but you could get in trouble extending beyond that. For example, you could say that so and so alleged abuse in some case but you couldnt say abuse occurred simply because there were allegations in a court document (absent a court finding of fact). So, in this example, there would be no liability protection simply because the wife had repeated the accusations in the court document as it makes them no more true. The court’s opinion linked above is quite good imho and sites the requirements for immunity in detial.

David Kedrowski

Yes. Defamation does not generally apply in court proceedings. It is fully protected. However, in MN the reasons for divorce do not matter so it would never be cited as a reason. However, if one were to lie about domestic abuse in an order for protection (ofp) petition then one could be liable for tort claims such as “malicious prosecution” and “abuse of process”, but never for defamation. I know this area of law very well as I brought such a suit (but it lost on summary judgment on other grounds).

“[A] party who files a pleading or affidavit in a judicial proceeding has absolute immunity, even for statements that are defamatory and malicious, “if they relate to the subject of inquiry.” Mahoney & Hagberg v. Newgard, 729 NW 2d 302, 305 (Minn. 2007) (citing the appellate decision in the same case).

Note, this statement does not bar the other tort claims as the false and malicious statements may be protected, but bringing the improper action itself (such as seeking an ofp without proper grounds) is still subject to liability.

Jim in RF

They’ll regret opening the door to having to draw the line where and to whom is the appropriate occasion.

How does this ruling inform the whole METOO debate about accusations & libel?

Rich

This story is a bit misleading. This case is remarkable only because the trial court decision was so clearly wrong as a matter of law. Under long standing law in Minnesota and other states, very few statements have absolute privilege from defamation. The usual list of privileged statements includes only statements made in open court and court filings, and statements made in the legislature. Note that in these cases, the statements are made under penalty of perjury, so if the person making the statement testifies falsely, they may be immune from defamation claims but they can still be criminally prosecuted for perjury. There are a handful of other exceptions but as the Court of Appeals opinion notes, these exceptions are rare and very narrow. The Court of Appeals decision applied long-standing (100 year old+) law to correct a clearly erroneous trial court decision.

As other recent cases illustrate, false domestic violence allegations are shockingly common, especially the context of marital or other breakups. Here’s a high-profile Minnesota case that is currently pending. In this case, a woman falsely accused her former partner, a University of Minnesota law professor, of sexual assault during the middle of their breakup and court case involving a property dispute. The professor was initially jailed but then released after police discovered her claims were false. She was then charged criminally with making a false police report. The professor then sued her for defamation.

Last year, the North Dakota Supreme Court allowed defamation claims by a husband against his ex-wife, who made false allegations of sexual assault. The Court earlier affirmed a decision that stripped the ex-wife of custody over the couple’s children because of her false allegations. Here;s a story: